Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cortex XSIAM vs Tines comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cortex XSIAM
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (13th), Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) (5th), AI-Powered Cybersecurity Platforms (7th)
Tines
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (17th), Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) (10th), AI-Powered Security Automation (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Software solutions, they serve different purposes. Cortex XSIAM is designed for Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) and holds a mindshare of 3.0%, up 1.7% compared to last year.
Tines, on the other hand, focuses on Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR), holds 7.3% mindshare, up 4.4% since last year.
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Cortex XSIAM3.0%
Wazuh10.2%
Splunk Enterprise Security9.2%
Other77.6%
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tines7.3%
Microsoft Sentinel15.9%
Palo Alto Networks Cortex XSOAR9.6%
Other67.2%
Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR)
 

Featured Reviews

AKASH MAJUMDER - PeerSpot reviewer
Incident response times have significantly reduced with efficient device integration and log parsing capabilities
Cortex XSIAM needs improvements in terms of data onboarding, parsers, and third-party integration supports. Additionally, a future update request is to enable tagging of endpoints in groups, similar to a feature available in Cortex XDR. The AI analytics need fine-tuning because some use cases are not working from my side.
VikramSingh8 - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation simplifies workflows with no code and excellent support
Reporting and dashboards could be more advanced for deeper analysis. Tines has its own dashboard, which displays information like how many stories have been created and how many automations have taken place. However, the reporting and dashboard are not advanced; they are quite basic, with fewer customizable options. The look and feel of the dashboard could be enhanced. Another area for improvement is in terms of documentation, as every tool and company has its own knowledge base.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The flexibility for creating manual workflows stands out."
"Its ability to deliver a substantial amount of security intelligence greatly enhances and optimizes our security operations program."
"The most valuable features of Cortex XSIAM are the machine learning used to identify threats, the complexity of the environment of products, and efficiency."
"Cortex XSIAM enhances our ability to apply endpoint protection policies, implement restrictions, conduct scans, and engage in sandboxing."
"I would give Cortex XSIAM a rating of ten out of ten."
"The most valuable aspect is that Cortex XSIAM doesn't generate excessive alerts, refines all search results effectively, and filters out incidents where SOC intervention isn't necessary, allowing engineers to focus only on what matters."
"The way the solution responds to detections and warnings is really impressive."
"It operates on a single, extensive database which enables it to excel in detecting threats and anomalies across the network and endpoints, delivering a highly effective and comprehensive security solution."
"The best advantage is the no-code automation, excellent customer support services, and ease of integration with other tools."
"The tool was vendor-neutral."
"One of the most valuable features is that it’s a low-code solution."
"The best thing is that it's no code, so it doesn't require coding knowledge."
 

Cons

"The standard integrations are very limited, and the integrations available are not listed in the marketplace."
"The platform isn't very developer-friendly and it should provide more flexibility and ease."
"I would rate the overall stability a six or seven, as we have only used it for a few months and need a year of experience to provide a full assessment."
"Cortex XSIAM needs improvements in terms of data onboarding, parsers, and third-party integration supports."
"The standard integrations are very limited, and the integrations available are not listed in the marketplace. Obtaining validation for integrations from Palo Alto takes around eight months, which is quite long."
"I am not sure if any improvements are needed right now."
"Cortex XSIAM is on the expensive side and requires substantial improvement in pricing."
"At the beginning, we experienced some difficulties setting up the product with connectivity and infrastructure, but ultimately it functioned really effectively."
"Tines was a little bit more expensive than Torq."
"Reporting and dashboards could be more advanced for deeper analysis."
"They started implementing some AI, and their AI is isolated."
"Maybe Tines can add more features and demonstrations, like videos on how to use the features within the tool."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is expensive compared to its competitors."
"The product cost could be considered value for money compared to other solutions in the market, though it is quite high."
"Since Palo Alto is trying to get as many new customers as possible, they're offering very competitive pricing."
"The solution comes at a significant cost."
"In terms of pricing, we found Cortex XSIAM to offer a very reasonable and competitive rate."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions are best for your needs.
868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise4
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cortex XSIAM?
It is an effective solution in terms of performance and functionalities.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cortex XSIAM?
The cost of Cortex XSIAM in the India market differs from other regions. When considering competition, from a sales perspective, the pricing is acceptable.
What needs improvement with Cortex XSIAM?
Cortex XSIAM is on the expensive side and requires substantial improvement in pricing. There are other features that could be improved, including integration with vendors such as CyberArk. I would ...
What needs improvement with Tines?
Reporting and dashboards could be more advanced for deeper analysis. Tines has its own dashboard, which displays information like how many stories have been created and how many automations have ta...
What is your primary use case for Tines?
I am Vikram Singh, I work for top service based multinational brand and I am responsible for delivering Tines services. Essentially, I am working on it, and I am leading one of the source services ...
What advice do you have for others considering Tines?
When you start working with Tines, ensure you pursue the Tines certifications. They offer these free certifications when they become your partner. Overall, I would rate Tines a nine out of ten.
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Splunk, Wazuh, Microsoft and others in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM). Updated: September 2025.
868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.